Thank you very much!
If I may ask one more thing, with your permission—sorry that I have to be explicit in these matters; it is Torah, and I need to learn.
If his wife brings him to ejaculation with her hands, and likewise with her mouth, is that considered intercourse by way of other body parts?
Of course I am asking in a case where this is only occasional, and both of them are happy with it, and it is simply more comfortable and more pleasurable for them this time.
In addition, it is clear to me that as a matter of extra piety it is proper not to do this; I am only asking according to those who permit anal intercourse on an occasional basis.
Thank you very much!

Plainly, yes (although this requires discussion in light of its connection to anal intercourse and “turning the table over”). Regarding the mouth, there is an issue of “do not make yourselves abominable,” although one can also debate that too—whether it is something that changes according to social norms. At the end there is a reference to an essay (Secret Ways) that discusses this at length.

Thank you very much!

Good evening!
It seems that here the Rabbi wrote differently, no? https://mikyab.net/responsa/Emission of semen by one's wife

That is what I noted needs discussion. The definition of intercourse here is unclear (which acts count as intercourse and which are merely ejaculation). Here I was speaking about what falls under the category of intercourse, but I do not know how to define that. With the mouth it seems this is intercourse; with the hands it requires further analysis. So no permission should be inferred from my words here. I was only touching on the definition of the concepts.

Hello Rabbi!
I agree that the matter is hard to define—what exactly counts as intercourse by way of other body parts—but I do not understand why the Rabbi is trying to compare it to intercourse and figure out what kind of intercourse there is here. It seems simply that the definition is “he may do with her as he wishes,” provided it is not for the purpose of negating procreation, and under that definition anal intercourse is given as one example, and intercourse by way of other body parts means rubbing against some part of her body that leads to ejaculation. Rashi (Yevamot 55b) on “intercourse by way of other body parts”: “squeezing the breasts and threshing outside with the other limbs.”
In any case, assuming the definition is as Rashi writes, I would be glad to understand whether in the Rabbi’s opinion there is any difference in level of permissibility between anal intercourse and intercourse by way of other body parts.
P.S. I am full of appreciation for the Rabbi, that on the dayan’s site these matters can be discussed in an open and matter-of-fact way.
Thank you, Rabbi

Because something that is not intercourse is not permitted at all (that is wasting seed). Therefore the important question is what counts as intercourse. On its face, the definition you brought from Rashi is obviously not logical.
As I wrote, I do not know what intercourse is here, since this whole topic is not clear to me.

Thank you for your answer!
If I may, with your permission, expand a bit more: I see the topic this way. “Threshing inside and winnowing outside” is forbidden not because of the semen itself going to waste, but because of the intention to prevent procreation, etc. Therefore anal intercourse is permitted not because it is intercourse in the halakhic definition (for forbidden relations), but because his intention here is not to negate procreation, only to satisfy his desire or because for some reason it suits them better this way, and that is why there is no wasting seed here. A practical difference would be whether it is permitted to marry a woman and always have anal intercourse with her: if the understanding is that the permission is because halakhically this too is a type of intercourse, then seemingly it would be permitted. But if the understanding is as I wrote, then it is permitted only when it is clear that he is not doing so in order to prevent procreation—that is, only when he does so occasionally. And in most places it seems as I am saying, that the main permission is that it is occasional, and not like the first line of reasoning. Therefore, in my opinion, when “intercourse” by way of other body parts is mentioned, the intention is not to the halakhic concept of intercourse but to the general linguistic concept of coming to a woman and being with her in whatever way, and since here too the reasoning applies that he is not intending to negate procreation, but is doing so occasionally and with the desire of both of them, etc., Rashi’s words seem very convincing to me.
And in truth it is very hard for me to understand what the difference is between between her breasts or with her hands and anal intercourse. After all, in both cases there is seed lost, so why should I care whether this is intercourse according to Jewish law or not? Therefore it seems to me that whenever his intention is only to make his wife happy or calm his desire, and not that he is doing so in order to negate procreation in a fixed way, it is permitted. And one should add that intercourse by way of other body parts is also called an act of stimulation; you can see that this is just a name for what today is called dry sex, not some halakhic definition of intercourse.
I would be very glad if you would explain where exactly you disagree with what I wrote, and in addition, even if you disagree, I would be glad if you would say whether the disagreement is because what I say really seems wrong to you, or because you are simply unsure.
Thank you very much!

“Threshing inside and winnowing outside” is destruction of seed. Not wanting procreation is not itself a prohibition. According to your view, it would be permitted to emit outside when the woman is pregnant (when she cannot become pregnant again then)?
As for all the rest, I do not know, as I wrote. From reasoning alone I already wrote that I agree, but the sources do not seem to indicate that.

Let me begin by saying that I too see this as a strained topic.
The prohibition is not the intention. The intention is what defines when there is destruction of seed here and when there is not. According to my definition, destruction of seed means wasting seed that was on its way to produce children and preventing that for the sake of not having children.
As for your objection, one could answer, though somewhat forcedly, that an act that really looks like the act of Er and Onan is harder to permit even if the reasoning exists that there is no negation of procreation. In addition, it is worth noting that we find they permitted, in a case of danger, “threshing inside and winnowing outside” with a pregnant woman throughout the pregnancy.
What does emerge according to my view is that anal intercourse with “threshing inside and winnowing outside” would be permitted, and perhaps in truth it is permitted, although here too one could push back and say that since it is more similar to intercourse and more similar to the act of Er and Onan, therefore it is forbidden.

Hello Rabbi!
Could it be that one of my comments was deleted here? By mistake or intentionally? If intentionally, I would be glad to know why.

I did not delete anything

Hello Rabbi,
I am asking whether it is permitted to have relations with her on top and him below, and I also do not know what intercourse by way of other body parts is, and if you could explain that, I would like to know whether that is permitted as well. Thank you.

I gave a link above.
For a summary of the laws, see here: https://ph.yhb.org.il/plus/14-02-18/

Is this permitted with a menstruant?

No. Even physical closeness is forbidden.

I would like to note that the questioner/commenter “Simcha” is not conducting himself like someone asking a question—that is, like a student before a rabbi—but rather as someone trying to argue and “teach us his own doctrine.”
In my view, that is inappropriate.

I did not see any problem. A discussion is taking place, and everyone can and should state his opinion.